Pete Hines says the "creation" engine from Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim will be finding its way into future Bethesda games, reports VG247 from their ever-upcoming interview with the Bethesda PR maven. "Yeah, I mean obviously, whatever Bethesda Game Studios works on after Skyrim will take advantage of the tech that they have developed," he told them. "But what that next product is or what it’s going to be? Everybody’s gonna have to wait and see."

Id Tech 5 is very limited. It has megatexture, it has large outdoor environments, but... for example, it has static, prerendered lighting (unlike Id Tech 4).

Todd Howard said: "Id Tech 5 is the best thing in the world at doing a very static environment that looks pretty and you're going to run through. But for the kinds of things I like to do, I like the world to be more dynamic."

How about this?

I flat-out don't buy it.

Now I'm not a Programming Major or anything, but as an experienced gamer with at least a basic understanding of modding, it would seem that in RAGE players and NPCs are already doing most of what players and NPCs typically do in Elder Scrolls games.

I'm not seeing the limitations. At all.

The horses in ES-V would move a little slower than the tricked-out buggies in RAGE, there'd be an inventory and stat system, expansive enviroments, and a cast of thousands.

I think Gamebryo gets too much flak and Bethesda's programmers not enough. That engine is pretty flexible and has been used for a wide range of games.

But still Oblivion and Fallout 3 are definitely the most stable Bethesda games in their history. Morrowind basically didn't work until after a few patches and most of their older games never worked right.

baltar wrote on Jan 25, 2011, 15:32:Screw all this noise we need a sequel to Terminator Future Shock and Skynet. Get to it Bethesda!

there is this new thing called the "internet" where they have all kinds of information

Source distantly originates from the GoldSrc engine, itself a heavily modified version of the QuakeWorld iteration of John D. Carmack's Quake engine, as is explained by Valve employee Erik Johnson on the Valve Developer Community:[30]

When we were getting very close to releasing Half-Life (less than a week or so), we found there were already some projects that we needed to start working on, but we couldn't risk checking in code to the shipping version of the game. At that point we forked off the code in VSS to be both $/Goldsrc and /$Src. Over the next few years, we used these terms internally as "Goldsource" and "Source". At least initially, the Goldsrc branch of code referred to the codebase that was currently released, and Src referred to the next set of more risky technology that we were working on. When it came down to show Half-Life 2 for the first time at E3, it was part of our internal communication to refer to the "Source" engine vs. the "Goldsource" engine, and the name stuck.

Source was developed part-by-part from this fork onwards, slowly replacing GoldSrc in Valve's internal projects[31] and explaining in part the reasons behind its unusually modular nature. Valve's development of Source since has been a mixture of licensed middleware (Havok Physics, albeit heavily modified, and MP3 playback) and in-house-developed code.

and now jeryyk, you may begin your arguments about why your belief is more correct than mine.. however i must warn you that i could give a rats ass about them... beliefs, that is

Jerykk, the adult thing to do here is to say the following...

You're right, I was wrong.

Trust me, although it may sting a little at first, your character will be bolstered and you'll walk through & emerge a man! You can do it!!

Viktor King wrote on Jan 25, 2011, 12:57:I'm confused, honestly. I thought the whole point of the idSoft buy/merge and subsequent lock-down of licensing/publishing of idTech 5 games was that ZeniMax wanted to leverage Carmack's technically superior engines to make ZeniMax a bigger player.

The 64hz off-timing of the GameBryo engine (apparently doing so well after '350 games' that it's for sale) is not a deal-breaker, but when Unreal 3 is everywhere and Rage demonstrates that idTech 5 is more than capable of the expansive environments that are a staple of Elder Scrolls, I'm wondering why this isn't the plan to begin with.

Id Tech 5 is very limited. It has megatexture, it has large outdoor environments, but... for example, it has static, prerendered lighting (unlike Id Tech 4).

Todd Howard said: "Id Tech 5 is the best thing in the world at doing a very static environment that looks pretty and you're going to run through. But for the kinds of things I like to do, I like the world to be more dynamic." (source)

I'm confused, honestly. I thought the whole point of the idSoft buy/merge and subsequent lock-down of licensing/publishing of idTech 5 games was that ZeniMax wanted to leverage Carmack's technically superior engines to make ZeniMax a bigger player.

The 64hz off-timing of the GameBryo engine (apparently doing so well after '350 games' that it's for sale) is not a deal-breaker, but when Unreal 3 is everywhere and Rage demonstrates that idTech 5 is more than capable of the expansive environments that are a staple of Elder Scrolls, I'm wondering why this isn't the plan to begin with.

there is this new thing called the "internet" where they have all kinds of information

Source distantly originates from the GoldSrc engine, itself a heavily modified version of the QuakeWorld iteration of John D. Carmack's Quake engine, as is explained by Valve employee Erik Johnson on the Valve Developer Community:[30]

When we were getting very close to releasing Half-Life (less than a week or so), we found there were already some projects that we needed to start working on, but we couldn't risk checking in code to the shipping version of the game. At that point we forked off the code in VSS to be both $/Goldsrc and /$Src. Over the next few years, we used these terms internally as "Goldsource" and "Source". At least initially, the Goldsrc branch of code referred to the codebase that was currently released, and Src referred to the next set of more risky technology that we were working on. When it came down to show Half-Life 2 for the first time at E3, it was part of our internal communication to refer to the "Source" engine vs. the "Goldsource" engine, and the name stuck.

Source was developed part-by-part from this fork onwards, slowly replacing GoldSrc in Valve's internal projects[31] and explaining in part the reasons behind its unusually modular nature. Valve's development of Source since has been a mixture of licensed middleware (Havok Physics, albeit heavily modified, and MP3 playback) and in-house-developed code.

and now jeryyk, you may begin your arguments about why your belief is more correct than mine.. however i must warn you that i could give a rats ass about them... beliefs, that is

Agreed! It irritates me no end when people brand a body of code as 'old' and fit to be replaced without having the slightest clue what that means. Sure, sometimes it's best to start again but most of the time most of the code is fine. In fact, old code is often better as it's been tested and you should never underestimate how much testing costs. Code can get crufty but often that cruft is there to deal with particular problems encountered on strange hardware.I'm sick of hearing internet pundits who don't know a compiler from a hole in ground complain that 'Game X needs a new engine - the faces r strang!' when that's clearly an art issue anyway.

The only time you need to cauterise major sections of code is when a (genuine) new paradigm comes along - hardware acceleration, multi-processor, completely different language, that sort of thing.

Even then, I'm sure the keyboard handling code from 20 years ago is just fine.